Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Not really. They got a ton younger in goal, obviously. They've got 5-6 defensive prospects to start to take over on D in the next 2-4 years. The one thing they still don't have are a lot of great forward prospects - however, Matteau and Reid Boucher could be pretty good in a couple seasons, and Henrique, Jacobson and Loktionov are 22-23. Lots left to do for long term for the forwards, but one thing the team seems to always be good at is undrafted types and picking up guys that didn't fit on other clubs (Loktionov for example).

They need to move one or both of Tallinder and Volchenkov, but if not, Tallinder's contract is up after this year, and Volchenkov can always be bought out next season. In 2 seasons, could Elias, Clowe, Ryder, Zubrus be too old to be worth the spots? Maybe, but only Zajac and Kovy and Clowe are signed past 2016, and they are 28, 30, 30 - not the worst thing. Lou has been really reluctant to dish out the really long term contracts.

I don't like what the Leafs have done this offseason. They still don't have the number 1 center they've needed since forever. They spent resources on what could be a good backup goaltender when they already had a good backup. Clarkson looks like a very expensive buy for a guy who has only scored more than twenty goals once in his career (last year would likely have been the second time with a full schedule.)

I don't like buying out Grabovski to sign Bozak. Just don't like the offseason at all.

I like David Clarkson. But there is no way he will ever ever ever be worth that contract. 2011-12 will likely be his career year, and of his 15 goals in 2013, 10 were scored in the first 14 games (10-6-16). He was not remotely good in the last 34 (5-3-8). He may be a 20 goal guy, but he's shown no ability to pick up assists, so he's not even a 40 pt/year guy. And in Toronto, he will get roasted for it.

I agree Russlan. I like Bolland, but I think he'll never be the player he once was. I hate buying out Grabs to pay Bozak. I don't really like the Bernier acquisition, I can see the logic but I question it just on use of resources. And Clarkson is one of those contracts that was an albatross once it said David Clar on the signature line.

and of his 15 goals in 2013, 10 were scored in the first 14 games (10-6-16)

I don't disagree, but the Devils did completely fall apart over the last half of the season, so how much of that is on him? I went to the Leafs game in the middle of that long losing stretch and they had absolutely nothing doing.

The last few years I've really appreciated being a Blackhawks fan on free agent day. So many fans wailing about the ridiculous contracts their teams are giving out, and I know that I just don't have to worry about that kind of thing from the Stan Bowman regime. It's remarkable, especially as a Cubs and Bears fan, to watch a team be positioned so well not just for the present, but the foreseeable future as well, and that just doesn't have to worry about making competing in that dick-measuring contest that is the initial free agent market every year.

The Devils had two very long losing streaks last year. The first when Brodeur was injured and Hedberg played like 10 in a row. The second when Kovy went down, and they lost 10 straight. They were 9-2-3 in the first 14, when Clarkson was scoring.

The Devils had a few problems last year - they were not as good as they were in the back-to-back sweep of Pittsburgh in early February, and they were nowhere near as bad as the 10 game losing streak. But Clarkson was hoped to be the right winger on the second line with Elias on his left (who still played a .75PPG season). Clarkson isn't a top 6 guy - he's a dirty goal scorer, and can pick up a lot on the PP. He's not the best skater, and not the best passer.

I don't think the Devils playing poorly led to a poor end to Clarkson's season, I think the injuries and poor play by Clarkson (among a fair number of others, no question) contributed to the Devils poor play. I think the advanced numbers also show the whole team was ridiculously unlucky.

Updated organizational prospect rankings from puck prospectus. The cut-off is very arbitrary, and that messes with some of the rankings, like the Wild dropping from #4 all the way to #22 in one season. The Oilers at #15 after 3 straight #1 picks is hilarious, but then I remembered that none of those players are included since they were rushed immediately to the NHL. The bottom 5 are Blues-Flyers-Devils-Kings-Sharks.

Rask gets $7 million for 8 years. He has a good argument for the best goalie in the world (at least while playing in Boston), and will be only 33 when the contract is up. The question is just if any goalie is worth that kind of money. Well, and the fact that's he never had anywhere close to a full season's workload.

Really? Since you can barely compete on dollars in the cap world, you are forced to compete on years. I'd offer Toews an 8 year extension right now if he'd take around his current cap hit. Even with two years left on his current deal he'd only be 34 when it was done.

Not just hockey, but it seems like almost any deal this long is any sport is bound to go bad. Of all the deals this length or longer, what ones have worked out? I'm having a hard time coming up with some examples - the first A-Rod deal*? - that aren't still in the middle of them. There's a lot longer list of long deals that haven't worked out.

*From the Rangers perspective, it didn't, even if you could argue they're wrong about that.

I'd offer Toews an 8 year extension right now if he'd take around his current cap hit. Even with two years left on his current deal he'd only be 34 when it was done.

I'd rather sign him to that than a goalie, but even with him there's a big concussion risk. Obviously they'll have to go there, most likely, but there'd still be a good chance it looks bad before it were over.

Also, his current cap hit is less than this Rask deal, and he probably wouldn't sign that.

I just don't think 8 years is that ridiculous. Just glancing through long deals that are done or soon to be, Elias', Timonen's and Datsyuk's worked out fine, which were 7, 7 and 6 years. There are a lot of deals that have gone badly in there too, but many of them were laughable the moment they were signed.

Also, his current cap hit is less than this Rask deal, and he probably wouldn't sign that.

I'm sure he wouldn't, but I was thinking around $7 for 8. Anything less than 8 is a steal, really. As for the concussion risk, yes but that's true of literally every player, and in many cases, LTIR is actually better than the alternative. The players are so wildly undervalued in general that accepting worthless years at the end of a contract is just business as usual.

Then again, it might be a problem following the 2019-20 lockout when the cap is dropped to $45 million and the floor is raised to $44.9 million.

In a salary cap world and now three lockouts in 20 years, it's just bad business. But screw it, better than that money ending up in Jeremy Jacobs' pockets. Plus as a non-Bruin fan, they got to get under the cap by losing more players after what I think was already a bad offseason. So I'm all for it.

I should clarify that I think anything over 4-5 years is usually a terrible idea (*cough*Clarkson*cough*), I just don't think an 8 year deal is categorically a bad idea. Especially this year, when the cap is artificially deflated and you can lock in what might be a significantly depressed cap hit for the future years of a superstar.

As for Rask specifically, I think it's a bad idea just because I don't believe in goalies. Like Leprechauns.

Yeah, it's made me particularly cranky. At least it's one year only. But it also means another 82 games of watching him giveaway the puck 3-4 times per. There is a rumor floating that they may try to find a trading partner to get rid of Volchenkov now, which would temper my anger.

So I was a Kovalchuk fan when he was here in Atlanta, but have largely lost touch with the league since the Thrashers left town. I saw the headline this afternoon, and went to a Devils blog to see what the reaction was. Much to my surprise, they were all devastated. I was assuming that they would be happy, since he had some absurd contract that I would've assumed was crippling the franchise, even if he was still a productive player (its not like he's the best player in the league, right?)

So can you experts give me a thumbnail explanation of what I'm missing? Crayon illustrations are welcome.

The Preds let S.Kostitsyn go to the KHL with a year left on his contract, they won't have to actually pay him but still had to take the full cap hit. The Devils can't get out of 12 years of cap hits by pretending this is a retirement if its not.

So can you experts give me a thumbnail explanation of what I'm missing? Crayon illustrations are welcome.

Monk can tell you much better, but as an outsider, my opinion of Kovy went way up after he left the Thrashers (and I liked the Thrashers). He started taking regular shifts on the PK and generally playing like someone who understood that defense is a thing that exists. He someone increased his minutes, despite being one of the most heavily used forwards even in Atlanta.

I think the shock ads to the reaction from Devil's fans, and the team is unquestionably diminished in the short term. In the long term, they're probably better off. Also, the Devils lost their next 1st round draft pick because of his original contract, and that is not worth 3 years of Kovy.

The Devils can't get out of 12 years of cap hits by pretending this is a retirement if its not.

Are you sure about this? I thought if he was failing to uphold his end of the contract they wouldn't have any cap penalties. The whole "burying" thing complicates matters, but how can the NHL punish the Devils for a player leaving? EDIT: the buried contracts rule says "Money paid to players outside of the NHL counts against the cap", but they wouldn't be paying him, right? I also don't see anyone reporting that the cap hit stays, though they will have a 250k recapture penalty until 2025.

Monk can tell you much better, but as an outsider, my opinion of Kovy went way up after he left the Thrashers (and I liked the Thrashers). He started taking regular shifts on the PK and generally playing like someone who understood that defense is a thing that exists. He someone increased his minutes, despite being one of the most heavily used forwards even in Atlanta.

I think the shock ads to the reaction from Devil's fans, and the team is unquestionably diminished in the short term. In the long term, they're probably better off. Also, the Devils lost their next 1st round draft pick because of his original contract, and that is not worth 3 years of Kovy.

OK, that helps some. Despite the rap he had for not playing defense, he always struck my untrained eye as someone playing with passion that was sorely lacking among many of his teammates and around the franchise in general. Nevertheless, being vaguely aware of some monster contract he had signed, I just figured they had to be delighted to get out of it (the same way I would be if my Cubs were ever able to trade Soriano). I guess he has aged better than Soriano, and perhaps, as you say, they are concentrating on the short-term harm over the long-term gain. Thanks much! (and any additional explanation still welcome)

I thought if he was failing to uphold his end of the contract they wouldn't have any cap penalties.

As a player with a NHL contract, he can only play in the KHL with the Devil's and the NHL's permission, the IIHF would block it otherwise. If you don't have a cap penalty it could be used constantly by teams to get out of contracts. The Kostitsyn thing just happened, there's no reason Kovalchuck would be treated differently.

The Predators are loaning Kostitsyn (or agreeing to loan), so that makes sense. He's not listed on the Preds capgeek page, but maybe that's their fault. I don't know what the Devils will do, this doesn't seem to be voluntary.

Ok, the Devils appear to be claiming that by officially retiring, his contract is voided, and as a player without a contract he can go to the KHL. So it is a shady attempt to let him leave without taking the cap hit. I doubt the league will let them get away with it.

The Predators are loaning Kostitsyn (or agreeing to loan), so that makes sense.

Right, because its the only way a player under contract can go to the KHL. The Devil's could do the same with Kovalchuck, but instead their going through a retirement charade to avoid the full cap hit.

Honestly have never been shocked by anything more than this. Still wrapping my mind around it.

The retiring/contract voided allows him to go to the KHL 'officially', it's not a cap thing, as said a couple times. There's nothing for the Devils to gain in trying to be a bigger prick than Kovy.

Business-wise, in per dollars for the franchise, it's not a bad thing. They don't have to pay him another $77m, and they avoid a much larger Recapture penalty if he chose to do this in 3 or 4 seasons.

Business-wise in terms of tickets, merchandise, etc, it'll probably hurt. On ice, it'll hurt a ton - especially since it comes a week AFTER free agency started. He was playing 24 minutes a game. He led the league in shorthanded goals last season. He played the full 2 minutes on every power play. He's a year removed from a 37-46-83 season that ended in a surprising Cup Finals run. He's not the 50 goal guy, but right now, no one else is really either.

It's also now a real precedent for the KHL, which could be really bad news for the NHL wrt Russians.

So it is a shady attempt to let him leave without taking the cap hit. I doubt the league will let them get away with it.

Capgeek has already removed him from the Devils' page, and I see absolutely no speculation anywhere that the Devils will face any cap hit other than the 250k from recapture. I agree that if you can terminate a contract and the player can still play overseas it doesn't fit with the rest of the CBA. I guess if it is mutual consent, then there is no problem. I think that's the difference between this and say, Wade Redden, that Redden wanted to be paid.

I glanced through the CBA, but I can't find anything that covers voluntary retirement plus a move to another league. There are sections dealing with loans, and dealing with players already under contract in another league, but not this situation that I can find.

What does termination entail, exactly? The contract ceases to exist? Can it be done anytime by mutual consent?

It also means the Devils lose any rights to Kovalchuk, so it's not a charade to them either.

Well, they make out like bandits in this from a financial aspect. They're broke and looking to sell or add investors, and now their payroll just took a very nice nosedive, so this a relief to them in that regard.

On the other hand two of their top three scorers from what was the 2nd worst offense in the league just walked out the door and have been replaced by... Ryane Clowe. This is a lottery pick team that is about to lose it's lottery pick, has no offense and no assets to move for offense. They're screwed on the ice in the short term.

So the new way to circumvent the cap is to sign guys to front-loaded deals of six years or less, then get them to agree to void the deal, since they can possibly get more money as a UFA then they would be paid in the low-salary years. Risky, though.

In the event a professional or former professional Player plays in a league outside North America after the start of the NHL Regular Season, other than on Loan from his Club, he may thereafter play in the NHL during that Playing Season (including Playoffs) only if he has first either cleared or been obtained via Waivers.

Am I right that Yakupov and Grigorenko are the only post-soviet Russian-born NHLers? Looks like Tarasenko was born about 2 weeks before the end of the CCCP. Not including the non-Russian states like Belarus.

*For now, the Devils retain Kovalchuk’s NHL rights, but it’s kind of complicated and it’s not forever.
*If Kovalchuk chose to un-retire and try to return to the NHL at some point, per NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, there are rules “way too detailed for me to try to summarize.” One of them is that “for a certain period of time” Kovlachuk would have to get the permission of all 30 NHL teams to play in the league again

That's a fantastic deal, so long as they can rebuild him after this postseason / he is currently alive.

Is it fair to compare the KHL to MLS? Despite all the hand-wringing, I don't fear any large-scale movement of stars to the KHL. The Kovalchuk fiasco seems more like Beckham going to the Galaxy than, say, the AL or AFL or WHA. A single star being massively overpaid as a publicity stunt, not the beginning of a trend.

It's an interesting question. If there were perfect labor peace in the NHL, I'd agree with your take entirely. But if escrow keeps happening and if they lose another year down the road, it may not be that simple. Kovalchuk's the first, and may be the last, but at this point, it's not out of the realm of my imagination for Ovechkin to suddenly leave, and then what? Are there two professional leagues in the world that people want to play for? Maybe.

It's an interesting question. If there were perfect labor peace in the NHL, I'd agree with your take entirely. But if escrow keeps happening and if they lose another year down the road, it may not be that simple. Kovalchuk's the first, and may be the last, but at this point, it's not out of the realm of my imagination for Ovechkin to suddenly leave, and then what? Are there two professional leagues in the world that people want to play for? Maybe.

This is an interesting one. As zack noted we see this in soccer already. It's a truly international sport and players from all over are willing to go to different places to play. I won't be surprised if we start seeing this more and more. A lot of players have now played in Europe twice and if those teams can come up with the money I can see players starting to jump more and more.

Yes, because there are two professional leagues that are willing to pay big money.

Yes, though big is relative. The KHL has a hard cap as well, and it was roughly half that of the NHL this season. Kovalchuk will essentially be a DP, as teams can exclude one player's cap hit so long as that player is part of the Russian national team (or maybe just Russian). A lot of the reporting around Kovy is how SKA will throw 10 or 20 million per season at him, but I think that's a one time thing, akin to Beckham, and not a regular feature of the league. Sure, Gazprom (who own SKA) are richer than god, but this is a league where nearly every arena is between 5,000 and 10,000 capacity. And if players think the Miami-Vancouver trip is bad, they will love the Vladivostok-Prague road trip.

If we see Russians chosing the KHL over the NHL, it will be in the Radulov mold, players who feel mistreated by or don't care about the NHL, not the superstar mold of Kovalchuk. Plus, after next season the relative desire for Russians to come home will probably drop substantially, though it could instead shoot up depending on how they fare in Sochi.

Over the long term, if more Western European teams join the K (Jokerit is after the upcoming season), then we could see more open competition between the leagues I think.
I'd like to see updated equivalencies since so many NHLers played abroad this season, but my recollection is that the talent level in the KHL is closer to the SEL than it is the NHL.

The problem with the KHL is that they have money and a desire to expand throughout Europe. I don't really worry about too many prime Canadians and Americans going to the KHL, but I could see a future where Europeans are few and far between in the NHL because they can make just as much money and play at home in the K.

Well, I said that the Devils were incredibly unlucky last season. This analysis agrees. The save percentage/shooting percentage is the biggest problem, and while scoring may still be a problem, a good Schneider can swing that a lot - Hedberg was awful, and Brodeur was average - but both were really bad/unlucky on the PK.

If you thought the Hawks were dirty in games that Carcillo didn't play in, man, you're going to be in for quite a shock. He's awful and tries to be a pest, but is easily ignorable now, so all he does is take cheap shots and try to ignore guys. He's utterly, utterly worthless.

I think those two knee injuries completely sapped Carcillo of whatever speed he had left, and if he's not a missile he has no value.

But his cap hit is low enough that he can be thrown away with no penalty, and I'd be surprised if he plays 10 games for LA.

Shreds, what do you think about Brown's new deal? I think it's pretty decent for both parties, but I'd rather have payed him more for less time personally. I am horribly biased for guys from upstate, though.

Sure, and I didn't think he'd play at all when the Hawks first signed him either. Yet there he was at the start of the playoffs this year, 3 years in, starting on the first line. It didn't last, and I don't think Suter is Q, but still.

Picture the second: all their post-CCCP sweaters are pretty bad, but Russia's 2014 sweater is just ug-ly. I think the Slovak and Swedish sweaters are usually the best. USA's is fine but insanely boring and the Canadian ones are usually too red.

The 2014 USA sweaters were released today, and they are an abomination. It looks like all the teams will be using the same awful Nike template, because they have the same awful shoulder yoke/sleeve stripe combo that the Russian jerseys have, except with matte stars and fake printed laces to boot.

If they wanted to use the shield, rather than the U-S-A, they should've just used leftover Amerkssweaters.

6 for 6 for Corey Crawford? That's very un-Bowman and a terrible overpay. I knew they'd end up giving him too many dollars given the way every other team is blowing wads of cash on goalies, but six years for a 28 year old goalie who is only 30 games past a terrible season?

And to make it worse, he still had a year left on the current deal. Why not wait? Is he going to cost any more if he has another great season?

Why not wait? Is he going to cost any more if he has another great season?

Well, that's the big question, isn't it? I thought it's generally accepted that the cap will rise substantially after this coming season, which means that high-end talent is set to become a lot more expensive. If Crow has another great season, who knows what he might command on the market?

Don't get me wrong, this is clearly quite a gamble on the Hawks' part - it's a gamble that Crow will continue his high level of performance, and it's a gamble that cap inflation will take some of the sting out of the numbers. But it's not THAT hard to imagine his price increasing substantially.

6 for 6 for Corey Crawford? That's very un-Bowman and a terrible overpay.

Agreed. I didn't like Rask's deal, but I'd rather have that one than this one. Agree that I don't understand the rush, even though I do like Crawford. I think terrible oversells his previous season (though not the playoffs).

If the cap gets to $80M or so next season, when this kicks in, the money part won't really matter. The problem is he'll be 35 at the end. I suspect that unless Crawford nose-dives this year, the Blackhawks won't care until this deal is half over.

What's interesting is that Schneider may be negotiating an extension next summer. I hope this is about the deal he gets from NJ with the higher cap.

Another extension for the Blackhawks. Today is Niklas Hjalmarsson for 5 yr, $20.5mil. I like this deal a lot more. But as puckdaddy points out, the Hawks now have $59mil committed to 13 players for next season. So the Hawks are definitely betting on the higher cap next year.

I'm a little surprised they got him so cheap. He was already making $3.5 million a year on his current deal, so this is a raise of $600K, for a shutdown d-man during his prime years? That sounds great.

Plus, now I don't have to wonder if every season will be Hammer's last with the Hawks, as I've done the last few years.

If Lil' Nicky Chalm Chalms is who we saw in 2010 and last year, than that is a fantastic deal. He's somewhat like Crawford in that he's coming off a great season following a pretty horrific one (or in Hjalmarsson's case, two horrific ones). He was overpaid on his last deal thanks to the offer sheet, so this is a very small raise on his cap hit.

The cap is definitely going up, but I'd be surprised if it jumps straight to $80m, given that it's only $64 this year, and it's a smaller percentage of revenue. Now we have to hope that they've been bombarding Toews and Kane with subliminal messages repeating "hometown discount".

The Sabres released their third jerseys today, which I will not be linking to so as to prevent further spread of blindness. Wysh described them better than anyone else will be able to: "These look like warm-up jerseys for an indoor lacrosse team."

Information that no one really cares about: I stopped visiting Yahoo and Puck Daddy and that bunch for a number reasons, but the final straw was Yahoo installing a program onto my computer without my permission (spigot). It also irritated me to no end the parroting of Forbes information about the Devils and how the league was about to own them with no other corroboration. I think I'll either use NBCSN or TSN from now on.

Shreds, what do you think about Brown's new deal? I think it's pretty decent for both parties, but I'd rather have payed him more for less time personally. I am horribly biased for guys from upstate, though.

I actually think signing longer term deals right now benefit the teams, since the cap is likely to rise fairly substantially over that time. If you sign him to a shorter term deal, you have to worry about signing him again (possibly) in a few years in a different cap environment. This was probably a really good year for long term deals on the team side because they could use that restricted cap space as leverage.

Brown also has to be evaluated on more than just his ability. He's the captain, has been for a while, is the first Kings captain to hoist the cup, and will have his number hanging at Staples one day most likely. Do the longer term and ensure he probably retires as a King. Also, Lombardi likes having his "boxes" filled, and Brown is a pretty good bet to maintain his level of production (modest thought it may be) for a fair part of that deal.

I think I'm most concerned about his age, though maybe goalies age more gracefully than skaters?

Anyway, I think if I was an NHL GM, finding a franchise goaltender would be low on my priority list. In fact, I think I'd rely on journeymen goalies (unless I luck into a young, top-5 goalie). I'd focus on building a roster of quality d-men. And I think Bowman's done that. Hjalmarsson, Leddy, Keith all still have upside IMO; Seabrook & Oduya are still solid enough.

But yeah, not a huge fan of this deal. IMO he's interchangeable with about 15-20 other goalies in the NHL.

You have to think Bowman knows something about the upcoming cap situation the way he's spending $$$ this off-season. This organization is now way too PR-savvy that I'm not too worried about having a lack of cash to re-sign Kane & Toews in the upcoming years.

I actually think signing longer term deals right now benefit the teams, since the cap is likely to rise fairly substantially over that time. If you sign him to a shorter term deal, you have to worry about signing him again (possibly) in a few years in a different cap environment. This was probably a really good year for long term deals on the team side because they could use that restricted cap space as leverage.

I agree with that. This is the off-season you want to sign your long term deals, as a GM.

With regards to Brown specifically, it's mostly an injury thing. I have trouble seeing him maintain past his early 30's. When you hit everyone in sight, you wear out a little of everyone and a lot of yourself. I can also see someone trying to Bertuzzi him.

You have to think Bowman knows something about the upcoming cap situation the way he's spending $$$ this off-season. This organization is now way too PR-savvy that I'm not too worried about having a lack of cash to re-sign Kane & Toews in the upcoming years.

It's also interesting since the team still claims they're losing money. Obviously keeping the arena full will help with that, and staying good will keep that up. Also, avoiding reincarnating Dollar Bill.